Diary of a Dirty Commie

[Laika]

I have relatively few spaces in which to be unconditionally myself. I have depression and anxiety problems and they've swallowed up the past six years of my life. My parents almost never talk about anything personal at all, and the subject gets changed quickly to politics. They seem utterly uncomprehending at the burden which they place on me by expecting me to find the "magic bullet" which will solve my personal problems and enable me to get on with the "normal" life they expect me to have.

They behave as if nothing has happened, nothing is happening, almost fossilized in a state of suspended animation, congratulating themselves that because they are both retired they do not face the problems of coming to terms with a society which they are deeply and profoundly hostile to. And in the absolute height of hypocrisy, then expect me to become a functioning member of the society they so utterly detest. My dad in particular sets the topic of conversation at the appropriate object of his outrage after reading the news or a book, and then sees to lecture me about how "wrong" things are. We go for long drives to get out of the house and he complains endlessly about how unreasonable everyone is.

Psychologists agree that it is extremely hard for people to spot abusive relationships because the person who is being abused has repressed their ability to feel anger and to defend themselves by defending reasonable boundaries and therefore to recognize that they are indeed being hurt. My relationship with my parents is not abusive in the obvious sense; but the way in which I am expected to self-censor almost any topic of consequences so that they can "keep the peace" means that I have habitually repressed thoughts and emotions for the duration of my childhood and thereby I am limited as a person and in terms of what I can do. As my parents are so utterly convinced of their apparent 'reasonableness' any attempt I make to change the nature of my relationship with them is treated as provocation. Whereas they feel free to be angry, I am expected to suck it up. So it is not entirely surprising therefore that I find this anger is directed against myself and that behind the depression and anxiety lurks the internalized self-destructive ethic of my parents.

My parents both consider themselves "socialists", but really they are fiercely conservative and their concern for others is instrumental in appeasing people so as to not to provoke their anger and a threat to the "system" itself with which they identify. "Good governance" is what my dad calls it. The same basic idea is at work in my house in so far I am "appeased" not fulfilled as a person.

The essence of my problems with my parents unstated concerns over my sexuality. I am bisexual and my greatest mistake in their eyes was to fall in love with a complete rogue. I'm not sure whether it was the drugs or the dreadlocks that gave it away. My parents preferred otherwise. Coming to terms with my sexuality has meant also coming to terms with the authoritarian, conservative or "sex-negative" nature of my relationship with my parents and more generally of society. Six years is a long time to be alone with your thoughts and I know myself better than the quiet, shy apologetic kid who craved the bad and corrupting influence of his friend to show him the meaning of love, life and freedom. He was straight before you ask, but that's another story.

There are good times with my parents, but these are 'good' only in so far as I do not challenge their authority to assert my freedom and whilst other people may have insisted I go out and get a job irrespective of the severity of my problems, they have allowed me to stay at home to recover. Slowly but surely, we are running out of topics to agree on. The irony of neglect is that it can both be the cause and provide the space to recover from mental problems. The issue is not one single event or trauma in my relationship with my parents but the de-humanising insanity of it's apparent "normality"; how when people reach a consensus that abuse is the natural state of affairs it is therefore their "moral" obligation to perpetuate it out of fear that those who suffer abuse may realize a capacity for revenge in the ensuring revolt as "reality" is exposed as an illusion.

Of course, the greatest revenge against those who do us harm is to show how utterly wrong they are; how pathetically they cling to their illusions lest they recognize their sense of inferiority before life, love and freedom that lurks beneath the surface. You will be free, happy, loved and loving and they will hate you for it because it only reminds them how little they are willing to do for themselves. There is nothing more satisfying or pitiful than proving the fundamental basis of a worldview upheld by someone who demeans you wrong and watch them live a lie.

In spite of depression, in spite of anxiety, I feel in the depths of my heart a great sense of love, warmth and optimism. Not the kind of naive wishful thinking, but one that is determined and convinced that I can improve upon my situation, even if I must daily go through the ritual of psychologically banging my head against the wall to discover the emptiness of the tyrannical "normality", my own anger and to then make a promise to myself to change my situation.

I wish i could say my life was more interesting. If I had my way, I would be the bad boy who guys wants to be friends with and girls wants to sleep with. it is important to cut through the ritualized displays of niceness and get to the essence of the matter; sex is the art of intimate conversation between our animal natures. our social nature is most honestly expressed in our sexual desire, so why hide it? The "bad guys" get further in this world not because they are bad but because they are truer to themselves. They are happier, more free, more fun and interesting to be around because they have grasped the complexity of the human animal, whilst rejecting the dehumanizing simplicity of the noble lie of "morality". It makes them more attractive too.

Life is short and morality is a lie told by hypocrites. Compromise and sacrifice are the ways in which we negotiate away our happiness in the belief that they are imposed upon us by a higher power. Man is the highest power and can therefore be challenged. life is best lived when we stop fearing our own power to create and enjoy being ourselves. My parents brought me up to be a "nice guy" in the name of being a functioning member of society. But I'd much rather be interesting.

 

[BSM1]

It's good (and healthy) that you can find a place to vent. Someone very wise said, "You can blame everyone for who you were then, but you can't blame anyone for who you are now". Live true to yourself.

 

[Laika]

It's good (and healthy) that you can find a place to vent. Someone very wise said, "You can blame everyone for who you were then, but you can't blame anyone for who you are now". Live true to yourself.

Thanks. it is much appreciated.

 

[Laika]

Here's a link with some stuff on Soviet Physics and the struggle to come up with Atheist/materialist explanations for the 'beginning' of the universe.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.1625.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.1625.pdf

 

[Laika]

The Communist Conscience
(Very Rough Sketches for a future essay)​

Introduction
The Problem of Evil
in the twentieth century​

Religions are often accused of the self-contradiction of believing in an omnipotence, omniscient and Omnibenevolent god whilst recognising the existence of evil. The ‘problem of evil’ has therefore served as a means by which to refute the claim of god’s existence and has been a major argument for atheism.

In The God that failed ex-communist described this inner conflict as the “Kronstadt” in reference to the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors of Kronstadt naval base who were key supporters of the Bolsheviks turned on them in 1921. This conflict between the humane ends of communism and the inhumane means is comparable to the problem of evil in which it becomes impossible to reconcile the claim of omni-benevolence of a communist system with the political realities of revolutionary violence, civil war, dictatorship and state terrorism. Marxism makes similar claims regarding it’s benevolence derived from theories of human nature as innately good or social and the progressive nature of the communist system, whilst also insisting on the “Scientific” nature of Marxist conception of history and the near-total power of the state to plan the development of society.

Conservative and religious groups have been quick to pick up the question of how a supposedly rational, humane and scientific ideology could be responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 50 to 100 million people as evidence of the requirement for religious doctrine as a moral compass. Atheists for the most part have denied any connection between Communism and Atheism as the “atheist atrocity fallacy”, insisting that the similarities in terms of doctrine and behaviour of its adherents, or citing personal beliefs of its leading figures, such as Stalin’s training in Russian Orthodox tradition, as evidence that communism was not a form of atheism.

These criticisms overall do not distract from the reality that communism was an explicitly atheist doctrine belonging to a materialist tradition of philosophy. Karl Marx drew inspiration for his early philosophical writing from the works of Ludwig Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity, in which Feuerbach claimed that religion had inverted the relationship between god and man; it was not god who created man, but man who created god. This argument is central to the understanding of man’s self-alienation in communist ideology, and it was the argument that mankind could overcome such self-alienation that was the basis for communist claims of emancipation. Religious belief was seen as evidence of man’s alienation and disempowerment before the forces of nature and of the ruling class of society. It was this view that religion represented an ignorance and superstitution of the natural world, and as a political weapon of exploiting society to preserve its own existence, that made communists deeply hostile to religious belief, and that only by embracing atheism and the philosophy of “dialectical materialism” could man overcome self-alienation in a communist society.

Consequently, it should be recognised that atheism is not a single homogenous group, but represents very different strands of thought. The responses to the “atheist atrocity fallacy” really represent the claim that communists were not the “true” inheritors of atheism, but were a pseudo-religious perversion of atheistic beliefs. Far from being based on reason, evidence, logic or science, it boils down to the fact that most atheists today are liberals who share anti-communist sentiments with their religious and conservative opponents. This is evident in the way in which the New Atheists consistently and vocally debate the existence of god, but not the moral implications of atheism for society or politics as a positive force for human emancipation from religious ignorance.

To a greater or lesser extent therefore, the moral evaluation of communism has been left to religious believers or conservatives with beliefs closely resembling them. The holocaust has been used as evidence that National Socialism constituted a unique evil, anti-communists have sought to draw comparisons between the atrocities of National Socialism and Communism as the “twin totalitarianisms” of the twentieth century. Whilst Communist atrocities do not neatly fit into the concept of ‘genocide’ because their victims were not targeted due to ethnic or racial origin, they do come under the term “crimes against humanity”. In Libertarian ideologies, the two are synonymous with the dangers posed by the expansion of government’s economic role, threatening private property as the economic basis for individual liberty. This conclusion, that liberty and private property are inseparably linked, is central to the political culture of neoliberalism in the early twentieth century.

Yet, this conclusion represents the near total capitulation of the enlightenment to the forces of reaction. The political alliance of libertarians and religious conservatives in the United States is not accidental, but a product of shared assumption regarding the immutability and selfishness of human nature. From this assumption is derived the conclusion that government is inherently a corrupt and corrupting force opposed to personal liberty and that the free market is preferable in virtually all circumstances to government intervention.

Environmentalists also share similar assumptions regarding human nature as inherently selfish and therefore incapable of self-regulation as derived from Thomas Malthus. Whether this is couched in terms of the inability of the poor to control their sex drive as leading to over-population, or of the wealthy and middle classes compulsion to consume leading to the depletion and degradation of natural resources, this argument that ‘human nature’ is fixed makes environmental problems insoluble by definition. The conclusion that we are condemned in the near future to a Malthusian catastrophe as our economic and ecological systems collide and collapse is based on the unmitigated support for the belief that human beings are corrupt by definition and that society is incapable of reform. Environmentalism has therefore been co-opted into support for free market economic policies which have proven to be an inadequate response to the threat of a Malthusian catastrophe.

If only to compound the problem, anti-communism has had profound intellectual consequences in which the right to individual freedom of thought has become the basis for the anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific beliefs which enable large numbers of people to question the validity of climate science in conjunction with the disinformation and propaganda of doubt endorsed by the oil industry.

The moral evaluation of communism therefore feeds into much broader debates regarding the possibilities for scientific and moral progress, the legitimate scope of government intervention, the future of society, freedom and the nature of man. Whilst great efforts have been made to solidify the claims that communists committed crimes against humanity, this has led to an inverted reasoning that man is criminal by definition and this moral evaluation feeds into the pessimistic and sometimes apocalyptic discourses, as the most “realistic” of man and our capacities.

What therefore is needed is a re-evaluation of communism, not simply for crimes against humanity but as crimes committed by humanity; it is necessary to understand the motivation, psychology and ideology of communist atrocities if we are to overcome the belief in the immutability of human nature and escape from the trap of capitalism realism: that there is no alternative, even when capitalism endangers the future of the human race such as through environmental problems. The longer the ‘realism’ of capitalism continues the more likely it is we will face a choice, as Rosa Luxembourg put it, between Socialism or Barbarism. At the moment it is only possible to see a choice between societal collapse and totalitarianism. We need therefore to re-examine the possibilities of social change by re-inventing the moral concept of man and beginning a new era on intellectual enlightenment out of the dark age of neoliberalism. Re-capturing some of the progressive, revolutionary and utopian aspirations of communism is a necessary step towards this social revolution.

 

[Laika]

The Communist Conscience (Cont'd)
(Very Rough sketches for a Future Essay)

Part 1.
The Ethic of Evolution​

The question regarding the immutability of human nature is closely related to debates regarding the immutability of the natural world in general. By our greater understanding of the process of evolution by natural selection, we can see how biological variations and changes develop. This is in contrast to the belief that the universe and all living things in it were created or intelligently designed.

At the heart of the controversy between evolution and creation is a debate over the origin of the universe. A creationist is an idealist, in asserting that consciousness is primary and therefore consciousness created the material world. This therefore necessitates the existence of a god as a ‘prime mover’ to create the universe. Evolutionary arguments over the origin of life are materialist- thought not consistently- in attributing the diversity of species in nature to being caused by nature itself and therefore not necessitating an external cause.

The opposition between creation and evolution reflects the philosophical opposition between idealism and materialism are conflicting explanations of the origin of the universe. The conflict between Science and Religion is a battle ground between these philosophical positions, and debates regarding the origin of species, life and the universe necessarily reflect these conflicting assumptions about the nature of our world. Underneath this is another layer of understanding as to how the world changes. Creationist explanations seek to attribute the cause of change to motive force external to the material world, namely god. Evolutionary explanations seek to attribute the cause for change to within the material world, in nature itself. The idealist nature of creationism is therefore necessarily connected with the belief that the world is immutable and unchanging; since the primary means to change the natural world is the supernatural. The materialist nature of evolution however would insist that the world is not immuatable, but can and does change of its own accord by the process of evolution. Evolutionary explanations, in attempting to derive a cause for change to the natural world itself, therefore have a tendency and a potential towards atheist explanations of the origins of species.

The most vocal and visible proponents of creationism are those who insist on the accuracy of the biblical account of creation in Genesis. This is not the only view that leads to creationism however. The question of origins and the conflict between idealism and materialism goes much further than the discussion of the origin of species, but to consciousness, life and the beginning of the universe itself. Scientists have sought to find explanations for these phenomena in a neutral way, entertaining both idealist and materialist explanations as being of equal value. Theologians have often commented on how the big bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe, is reconcilable with the existence of god and the belief in god as the creator of the universe. Scientific understanding has been in crisis as materialism has retreated to make way for idealist explanations, which make problems insoluble by definition. If the cause of phenomena is consciousness, then the natural world is not deterministic but is based on the probabilities of certain outcomes. The probabilistic explanations therefore make it extremely difficult to predict the nature of phenomena since we can only understand the material world- not the realm of consciousness. When change is attributed to consciousness, the material world is understood as more and more immutable, unable to change itself, creating a greater reliance on external causes for our understanding of the world.

The relationship between social and natural sciences is hotly contested precisely because of the role of consciousness differs in the disciplines. Natural science can be seen as the study of the material world, whereas social science is the study of how consciousness creates our society and social relations. Natural Science tends towards materialism and determinism, whereas Social Science tends towards idealism and conceptions of free will. For this reason attempts to assert that natural science offers a superior methodology and explanations of phenomena, and therefore their application to the problem of social science have been criticised for treating science as an “ideology” or ‘scientism’.

The prospect of an understanding of social science that it deterministic rather than based on free will has caused serious controversy in the course of the twentieth century, particularly because it has been closely associated with National Socialism and Communism. National Socialism applied biological laws of nature to society in a very literal and simplistic reading of Darwinian theories of evolution. Communist conception of social evolution is arrived at from different sources, namely a belief in a materialist dialectic in which society changes itself by a process of internal contradiction and class struggle. Both National Socialism and Communism proposed theories of social and historical development and considered them to be scientific theories representing objective laws of development. The objective and scientific character of these laws acted as an over-ride to pre-existing ethical systems and represent potentially nihilistic collapse of Judaeo-Christian ethics.

Karl Popper was a critic of these ‘historicist’ theories of society for precisely this reason, arguing that these grand philosophies of history which claimed to follow observable laws represented a threat to the ‘open society’ of liberalism, based on individual rights and free will. Popper also argued that these views were also un-falsifiable since they proof for the validity of these worldviews was only derived by implementing them; they therefore had a massive confirmation bias.

Liberal political philosophy is however dualistic; it recognises the existence of two realms, the realm of consciousness and of matter. The dualistic nature of liberal philosophy represents the claim that consciousness is primary and matter is secondary and is therefore ultimately idealist. Liberal political systems are based on the belief on individual agency, free will and natural law. These concepts were not new but were directly inherited from the Judaeo-Christian ethical tradition through the Protestant reformation, in which god possessed free will and endowed man with free will. The liberal notion of rights is therefore based relies heavily on the conception of free will.

The dualistic nature of liberalism therefore presents a problem to the understanding of society; if consciousness is the cause of our social organisation, society is not predictable and can only change by virtue of some external cause. This is not the ‘ordinary’ people but belongs to those who possess the power of ideas, the ‘genius’ of great men, who stamp their authority on to ordinary people and act as the motive force for social change. The understanding of social change in liberalism is therefore inherently theological, since it is only those who possess some form divine revelation or a better understanding of the nature of the soul that can change society since society cannot change itself. The people are helpless and powerless without the ‘great men’ send from god to change the world. Free will therefore belongs only to the few and not the many.

Whilst God generally does not figure in the explanation of the nature of society, the ‘soul’ does. In-spite of nearly two to three hundred years of scientific revolution and industrialisation, our moral understanding is derived from the conception of ‘human nature’ as the de-facto ‘god’ of our society. It is human nature which is used to explain social change, and yet human nature does not itself change. human nature is simply another way of saying the ‘soul’, and free will is a property of the soul, of man’s conscious activity, but not of his physical existence which is determined. The dualism is liberalism means that liberalism is an inherently idealist and theological conception of the world in which social relations between individuals change, but the nature of individuals does not.

This reliance on theology means that liberalism is ultimately creationist; human rights are not a property of man’s physical being, but of his consciousness, consciousness is a property of human nature and/or the soul. In trying to explain the origin of consciousness therefore, we learn that the concept of natural rights originate from god. There is nothing human about human rights because they attribute to man the property of god; that man possess free will as god is assumed to.

Materialist explanations of nature such as evolution, lead logically to attacks on the existence of god. But the liberal conception of society, ethics and human rights is dependent on the conception of freedom of the will, that will is ‘free’ from material constraints, that mind and body are separate and that there is a dualistic separation between natural rights and the actual rights which we possess. Liberalism begins with the assumption that man and his nature are immutable; whereas evolution leads to the conclusion that man can and does change. Liberalism is based on asserting a series of universal and eternal moral laws as human rights derived from consciousness, where evolution necessitates an understanding of morality that originate from the physical limits of man himself. The concept of natural and social evolution as a form of Philosophical materialism, and therefore the practice of social change, therefore leads not simply to the death of god but of liberal conception of human rights itself.

 

[Laika]

The Communist Conscience (Cont'd)
(Very Rough Sketches for a Future essay)
​

Part. 2
Absolute and Relative Ethics​

The Death of God represents a fundamental challenge to the concept of human rights. This is because it is a challenge by philosophical materialism to the nature of consciousness, free will, individual agency and therefore of human rights. It is important therefore to distinguish between the ‘idealist’ conception of human rights, in which rights are the product of consciousness from an alternative materialist conception of rights. In attempting to understand rights, not as originating from the mind or from natural law, but from the physical being of man and his socio-economic relations, we are necessarily drawn into a discussion as to whether these rights are absolute or relative.

Fredrich Nietzsche grasped the major implication of Atheism was that, if our ethical conceptions are derived from god, this therefore necessitates a ‘trans-valuation of all values’. The Death of God leads necessarily to the position in which man, and not god, because the source of all ethical values. This ‘over-man’ or ubermensch, then decides what constitutes ‘morality’. Nietzsche’s philosophy and its implications remain hotly contested. One aspect of his philosophy, that man determines the nature of right and wrong, proved important to National Socialism in arguing that the ‘leader’ or Furher was the one who determined what was right, whilst everyone else was required to submit to the will of the Furher. A Similar conclusion is drawn by Anarchists, who argue that what is right and wrong is a product of man himself and not of god; this however does not have the implications of National Socialism because Anarchism does not have the same understanding of society; anarchists believe people are by nature equal, whereas fascists believe they are by nature unequal. Both ideologies have elaborated such theories in Darwinian or biological terms, the latter in terms of the evolutionary competitive struggle for survival between individuals and races, whilst the anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin used the example of co-operation in nature, such as amongst social insects such as ants, bees, wasps to derive the opposite conclusion that man is by nature a social animal. The implications of attributing the highest moral authority to man rather than god, is therefore heavily dependent on what conception of man we are using. It therefore follows that the conception of human rights also depends on what we consider to be ‘human’.

By asserting that the conception of rights is derived from man and not god, the social organisation of man is subject to the process of evolution. Society is not the fixed or immutable creation of a deity, but is subject to change originating from within itself. The nature of rights and ethics is therefore not an absolute property ‘created’ by a deity or set down in immutable commandments. The legal and moral conception of rights is subject to a process of evolution, and is therefore relative to that process of social evolution.

Fredrick Nietzsche theorised that the death of god would lead to the collapse of ethical systems. This included liberalism which he recognized had Judaeo-Christian roots and was not a wholly secular product of the Enlightenment. Nietzsche’s position represents an idealist one, in which rights are the property of consciousness and without consciousness there are ‘no’ rights. The only rights are those which are asserted by the ‘will to truth’ of the ubermensch. In this ‘will to power’, the ubermensch then imposes their moral values on society. Morality remains a property of consciousness, and it is the consciousness of those who are most powerful who determine what is moral. The evolution of morality is therefore closely tied with the evolution of man’s moral character and whether he possess a ‘master’ or ‘slave’ morality.

Without God as the highest moral authority to determine right and wrong, morality is instead determined by the highest moral authority of man; the state. Ethics become closely interwoven with politics and what is ethical is therefore dependent on the power of a person or group to determine what is right and what should therefore be inscribed in law. The Death of god leads to the politicisation of ethics as they cease to be absolute and above the consideration of politics and power struggles. The concept of right is therefore not only relative to social evolution, but also to the power struggles within society itself.

This conception of ‘right’ violates a fundamental principle of liberalism; namely secularism. In liberalism, the dualism between the realms of consciousness and matter, leads to a further dualism in society; between individual consciousness and society. There is in liberalism a separation between public and private spaces, and also between the public laws of a society and the private morality of the individual. Liberals enshrined the separation of Church and State into their constitutions as a way to safeguard religious freedom for all, without one religion comes to assert power over the others by being the ‘established church’.

The Death of god leads to a de-secularisation of society; as ethics ceases to be the product of god and becomes the work of man, so ethics and politics align into a single whole; the power of man to determine their own rights therefore becomes a political issue as atheism and humanism becomes the moral underpinning of the state. The Atheist state therefore closely resembles a Theocratic one in so far as people cannot be neutral on moral issues but must necessarily take the side of the state. The concept of ‘freedom of religion’ becomes instead the insistence of adherence to an official ideology. With this also collapses other notions of individual freedom, such as freedom of thought or free scientific enquiry. In a theocracy, everything becomes a religious matter, whereas in an atheist state, everything becomes politicised.

The belief in absolute ethics therefore meant that ethical laws and rights were held to be ‘above’ political concerns and the product of an immutable natural law. The absolute nature of these ethical principles as gods commandments meant that they were held to be ‘above’ the law of the state, thereby allowing a separation of church as a source of moral authority for individual conscience and the state as the legal authority. The Materialist conception of rights eliminates this distinction between the spiritual and material world, thereby making ethics relative to social evolution and political power rather than absolutes held to be above politics. Ethics and politics not only collide but are inextricably fused together into a totalitarian state.

 

[Laika]

I'm having to slowly think over the relationship between materialism and free will. Materialism is necessarily a form of hard determinism (matter determines mind) so it has alot of ethical implications. I'm starting to get over the sense of "guilt" for being a commie and beginning to feel more comfortable with my beliefs, which is nice.

 

[Laika]

The Communist Conscience (Cont'd)
(Very Rough Sketches for future essay)

Part 3.
The Inversion of Free Will​

Free Will is a central idea in the conception of freedom in both Judeao-Christian and secular Liberal ethics. It is the freedom to act in accordance with one’s will, that defines freedom. This conception of freedom as negative necessarily means that the maximisation of such freedom requires the retreat of social constraints on the individual’s freedom of the will. The interests of the individual and society are irreconcilably opposed between the moral agency of the individual and the restriction of that agency by external authorities, typically the state, but also the church.

Free will represents a form of philosophical idealism in that our individual consciousness produces our actions, and our ‘will’ is free to act irrespective of material constraints. A materialist conception of ethics is therefore necessarily opposed to the conception of free will, since it begins with the premise that consciousness is secondary. Hence the mind and therefore the will of the individual is determined in materialism.

(Objective) Idealism is dualistic in assuming that the mind and the body/matter are separate from one another. If we think of a person’s interests as material, as a property of matter and the body, we are confronted with a paradox in which the conception of freedom is inverted. In a deterministic ethical system, “freedom” is the ability to act in accordance with your own interests, whereas to assume that a person has free will when will is in fact determined, necessarily means that free will assumes we can act in a way that is contrary to our interests.

Free Will therefore becomes the means of justifying acting in opposition to your own interests because of the dualistic separation of our agency (in the mind) and our interests (in matter/body). Far from becoming the means by which to measure a person’s freedom, free will is inverted to measure the extent to which a person is oppressed; that is, by acting contrary to their interests under the illusion of free will.

“Freedom” in the materialist and determinist sense, is determined by our interests. it is the ability to act in accordance with those interests which defines the measure of freedom. That which advances our interests in “progressive” and that which attacks our interests is “reactionary”. Consequently, the materialist conception of freedom is a positive one based on freedom of action. It is also therefore closely related to the conception of power; since freedom is measured by our increasing power to achieve our interests.

This relationship between materialism, determinism and power necessarily means that a materialist conception of ethic is inherently totalitarian; without the conception of free will, the actions of the individual are determined by the group. This necessarily means that the interests of the group determine the interests of the individual and therefore take precedence over them. This therefore means that ‘power’ is judged according, not to the advance or retreat of individual interests, but of the advance or retreat of the interests of the group; as such it is the ‘power’ of the group to achieve its aims which constitutes the measure of freedom in this sense.

***​

The next issue is the relationship between group and individual interests in this system and in understanding how the group determines the interests of the individual, and how the individual expresses and achieves their interests amongst the group.

 

[Kirran]

OK, well I haven't read it all yet, even close. But just in reference to the first post: if you're ever in Manchester (or, from August onwards, Cambridge) I will give you a hug.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yet, this conclusion represents the near total capitulation of the enlightenment to the forces of reaction. The political alliance of libertarians and religious conservatives in the United States is not accidental, but a product of shared assumption regarding the immutability and selfishness of human nature. From this assumption is derived the conclusion that government is inherently a corrupt and corrupting force opposed to personal liberty and that the free market is preferable in virtually all circumstances to government intervention.

Environmentalists also share similar assumptions regarding human nature as inherently selfish and therefore incapable of self-regulation as derived from Thomas Malthus. Whether this is couched in terms of the inability of the poor to control their sex drive as leading to over-population, or of the wealthy and middle classes compulsion to consume leading to the depletion and degradation of natural resources, this argument that ‘human nature’ is fixed makes environmental problems insoluble by definition. The conclusion that we are condemned in the near future to a Malthusian catastrophe as our economic and ecological systems collide and collapse is based on the unmitigated support for the belief that human beings are corrupt by definition and that society is incapable of reform. Environmentalism has therefore been co-opted into support for free market economic policies which have proven to be an inadequate response to the threat of a Malthusian catastrophe.

If only to compound the problem, anti-communism has had profound intellectual consequences in which the right to individual freedom of thought has become the basis for the anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific beliefs which enable large numbers of people to question the validity of climate science in conjunction with the disinformation and propaganda of doubt endorsed by the oil industry.

Absolutely excellent and comprehensive intro. Thanks for posting! I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to post here like this, or if you'd want me to, but I wanted to comment on this first section a bit, if that's okay (if not, I am poised with my finger on the delete button).

I think that a lot of the problems in the sections posted above are caused by a specific tactic of disinformation, spreading propaganda through a false dialectic process, disseminated through a 24-hour media machine.

Instead of scientific and social conclusions that can be accepted which allow movement to the next level of dialectic processes, those conclusions are reevaluated and compared to idealologies that support capitalist ventures or dogmatic systems of belief.

If those elements do not see the correct material conclusions as beneficial to them, they simply recreate a false dialectic to synthesise a new result through the media. Scientific understanding is no longer accepted, because it is constantly dismantled by an idealistic counterpoint through media debate (a false dialectic). The conflict produces ratings, and in the end, the culture accepts a synthesis that has been shifted to the view those in power want the public to have.

What should be bothersome about this is that it co-opts what should be a process of social and technological advancement, and deliberately moves it backwards. The propaganda machinery is not only aware of marxist dialectics, it abuses its method deliberately to shift public opinion away from correct conclusions.

One of the core problems of communism in the future, beyond the moral implications, is figuring out how to reclaim and restore the purity of the dialectic process from those who still use it in an immoral way today to actually prevent social and scientific progress.

 

[Laika]

Absolutely excellent and comprehensive intro. Thanks for posting! I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to post here like this, or if you'd want me to, but I wanted to comment on this first section a bit, if that's okay (if not, I am poised with my finger on the delete button).

I think that a lot of the problems in the sections posted above are caused by a specific tactic of disinformation, spreading propaganda through a false dialectic process, disseminated through a 24-hour media machine.

Instead of scientific and social conclusions that can be accepted which allow movement to the next level of dialectic processes, those conclusions are reevaluated and compared to idealologies that support capitalist ventures or dogmatic systems of belief.

If those elements do not see the correct material conclusions as beneficial to them, they simply recreate a false dialectic to synthesise a new result through the media. Scientific understanding is no longer accepted, because it is constantly dismantled by an idealistic counterpoint through media debate (a false dialectic). The conflict produces ratings, and in the end, the culture accepts a synthesis that has been shifted to the view those in power want the public to have.

What should be bothersome about this is that it co-opts what should be a process of social and technological advancement, and deliberately moves it backwards. The propaganda machinery is not only aware of marxist dialectics, it abuses its method deliberately to shift public opinion away from correct conclusions.

One of the core problems of communism in the future, beyond the moral implications, is figuring out how to reclaim and restore the purity of the dialectic process from those who still use it in an immoral way today to actually prevent social and scientific progress.

it's cool. I don't mind discussing it.

Your absolutely right in thinking that the dialectic is hindered by capitalist ideologies; in most cases, people will not even accept that change is possible because it conflicts with our sense of 'reality', in which capitalism is not seen as an economic stage of development, but as a permanant or "natural" state. The latter is particuarly strong when it comes from religious sources, and social darwinism (in which capitalism is thought to be the result of 'biology' not economics).

Science is- in marxist theory- not ideologically nuetral in the class struggle as capitalist ideology can be disguised by appealing to the authority of 'science' (social darwinism being an obvious one). I'm personally sceptical on this, because the implication is the science is inherently political caused problems in the USSR as party ideology and scientific evidence came into conflict.

The propaganda machinery is generally NOT aware of Marxist dialectics, beyond what is taught in sociology or political theory classes at secondary school or university. What is propagated is however an 'enemy' image, in which ordinary people believeing in 'universal human rights' identify the rights of the ruling class to own private property, with their own freedom or individual liberty. Whilst it is true that the Soviet Union, etc, can be characterised as totalitarian, this is a gross mis-representation of the theory behind it. Totalitarianism was a concept developed by Fascists (Mussolini) as an ideal form of state. Whilst Fascism and Communism are both dictatorial systems and use very similar methods to establish their rule, beyond being collecticvistic their ideologies couldn't be more different. So the comparision between fascism and communism comes down to equating communism as an inherently 'reactionary' system that is opposed to freedom and progress. it got alot wrong, but a broader reading of the history of communism as a social movement for emancipation, rather than an exclusively political one for power, shows it was not inevitable.

And your right, as the 'dialectic' of political discussion takes place on the ruling classes terms. Very rarely will you hear a dissenting point of view. Anti-Capitalism is common place, but proposals for alternative to capitalism will almost never get an airing because it is threatening to the status quo which relies heavily on the belief that "there is no alternative". The scope of what people believe is possible is therefore restricted as 'reality' is defined by the shared ideological landscape of the mass media and less and less by individual experience. consequently, we have a contradiction between ever increasing access to information and an increasingly ignorant and manipulated public opinion. The internet goes some way to break the ruling classes control on defining what is real and what is possible, but it remains quite limited.

 

[Laika]

lol, "When I change the world maybe they will notice me..."

 

[Laika]

The past months have been very hard. I have had to accept that, inspite of my hopes to the contary, that communism is indeed a totalitarian ideology. This does not automatically make it evil, but certianly puts it well beyond conventional definitions of what is 'good'. it has made dealing with depression very difficult, as that hope that we can better ourselves, and myself overcome my own limitations, has been fundamentally challanged.

Being in the left-hand path for a bit gave me a break for two weeks. Just a chance to sit back, and focus on finding out who I am, overcoming feelings of guilt and fear that come from the notion that rebellion against god is mankinds original sin. it was a useful experiment and gave me a moment to think about reasons for anti-thesism and what it means to be an athiest. It is not simply enough to believe there is no god, but that you have to live with the recognition that who we truly are is not something we can hide from, clinging to our illusions as it they were a life raft, realising slow that perhaps they are what are pulling us down.

There is part of me that wants to become a libertarian. it is a path more well trodden, and that gives some knowledge that it is safer. There is that terrible moment when your heart sinks and you realise that all the accusations, excuses and condemnations against communism are true. Or at least partially so. I share the same ideas as Stalin, Mao and all the others. How far does that make me like them? How much choice is there about what you can become when in such company? Have I swapped belief in one genoicidal system for another? Am I just a Nazi with a higher education?

There are of course, no risks to anyone else by my being a communist. nobody cares. it is so utterly irrelevant that even a lifetime spent in this pursuit is such a small drop in the ocean. beyond catastrophes of capitalism's own making, it will in all probability die out in my lifetime. These are forces too big to be changed by some reckless dreaming. Bizarely that lifts the burden somewhat, since I can only be held responsible for my own mistakes. Even if these ideas are evil, the contagion stays with me. my immunity to utopianism broken by years of mental illness and sucicidal thoughts. 'Being 'realistic' is an invitation to depression, for reducing all things to cold hard cash is so inhuman. Why be realistic unless reality is a prison and dreams are crimes? the knowledge that life is short gives each day its urgency and that is a lesson well worth the sacrifices, but the feriousity of the struggle for my own inner life is unforgiving.

A strange thing has happened, in that I realised communists only ever believed that god was an illusion. They never once said god was false nor did not exist, only that god was not material and was a projection of the ruling class, an error of abstract reasoning. They waged a war against god because god was real- only not in the sense understood by believers. The love of god replaced by the love of mankind; and in the name of omnibenevolence, both serve to justify the evils of conflict. it is subtle but clearly indicates that a complete rejection of religious belief is impossible, and would be inhuman. The notion of "strong atheism" as demonstrating that religion is wholly false, is an absurdity of abstract reasoning and of the errors of eliminative materialism. I have no soul, not as some spiritual substance, but I still have some 'essence' of being, some dimension that makes me essentially human. It is mine to lose.

 

[Laika]

it will be my 26th birthday in less than two weeks. my sense of excitment is puntuacted by the sense that I have now had depression for over six and a half years. beating depression would be the best birthday present I could think of. (well, second best). the sense I could 'walk free' from it and go and live the rest of my life.

I joined the communist party a few months back. deep down I know it was because I wanted someone to convince me. its just that as a generation, there is nothing to look forward to or to aspire to. it took a month before my mum was on speaking terms with me again when I told them. my dad took three or four days. They were "quite pissed". I wasn't going to hide it from them as they were going to find out eventually. its a decision I wanted to be proud of. I can occassionally hear parts of conversation in the living room in my bedroom during the night; I overheard them think I was a fool and it was "my own fault" for doing it. But no matter what decision I make I will always be a dissapointment to them. they can be kind sometimes, but really they don't know me and they don't want to. I'm not a kid anymore. Whilst that doesn't mean I can't make stupid decisions, it would be nice not to be made to feel like a criminal everytime I do something that sets off their anxieties, or that everyone of my faults gets brought up as an excuse to not take me seriously.

As the past month has unfolded I've thought several times about leaving the CP. it is the 'responsible' thing to do, but honestly I'm not sure its the right one. too much is going wrong in the world, it's not just my life.

the rupture between me and my parents dates back to when I went to Uni. I developed a crush on a guy who was a flate mate in the same year but two years older than me, but was generally an all round bad influence; the kind I desperately needed and who, if he had taken more interest in me could well have helped me open up and made me very happy. it was a rewarding freindship even for its dissapointments. After the first Christmas back, my mum told me to my face not to be freinds with him. it was an unjustified intervention. She already knew then- before I did- that I was bi, so doing that was even worse. I couldn't mention his name in the house without fear of a row starting or provoking some strong reaction. that was eight years ago. I mentioned him once a few weeks ago by accident. that was the first time in three years.

three years ago, the line was drawn in the sand when this guy took a job in defence. he was pretty much selling weapons (legally) and it led to an ugly and messy confrontation. our freindship ended, but not before I finally came out. I had nothing left to lose and just wanted some way to preserve our freindship in the long run. I didn't want to lose him even though I knew talking to him would be hard. he was selling weapons because he thought it was cool.
My parents gave me a cup of tea when I told them. As it played out however, they just didn't want to know. it got to a point where I was threatened with being thrown out of the house for "causing tension". I went on the Bus to the nearest city just to get away from it all and for the two hours it takes on that trip I was mentally adding up all the things I might have to do to survive if I was made homeless. When I got back I packed a bag in case it ever did get that bad. There were several times in the future when I wondered if I should just get out. I stayed and paid the price for it by staying silent so they can hold onto their idyillic illusion of family harmony and I could have a roof over my head. it was the lesser evil. The fact is they are homophobic- and even if things had worked out with the guy, they would still hate him. it is hard to get past the veneer of reason my parents have, but deep down they just don't care. they made up their mind and thats it.

Things have improved since then, but I've never really forgiven them for that. I was in love with a guy committing mass murder because he thought it was cool, I did what was right and stood up to him, mainly for his sake, and I still got blamed for being in love with him. they really don't deserve me. In a way niether did he, but he made me happier than I'd ever been for his amazing sense of life as an adventure- he just went one too many. that was his redeeming qualitity for his faults. Even though he was an arms dealer, he was not a bad person. if ever theres a inner monolgue to have that's going to warp your worldview- that's got to be pretty high up the list.

The scariest thing about it was everyone else though. they didn't blink. I was suicicidal, as just about everything had blown up at once and revealed just how shallow my relationships were and how utterly alone I was on this. I'd done the right thing and both my crush and my parents hated me for it, nor had any of my freinds come to back me up (with one notable exception who did pause as the idea sunk in- I'm grateful as it meant I didn't feel completely crazy). I saw a counsellor, and when I said I was emotionally conflicted because I had feelings with a guy who was killing people, she went "what's wrong with that?" the tone gave it away that she didn't get it. I had only one more session with her after that- it seemed kind of basic. the lasting legacy of it was that I gave up pacificism; if people could just go along with something like that without thinking about it- it just rang alarm bells. "so this is why the fascists win.it really is that easy."

Writing this out is barely believable. By the time I've posted this it will receede back into a dark corner of my head when it can pretend it didn't happen until someday I've finally proceesed it. Some part of me still fights the knowledge that that did all really happen. "it could never happen to me" it goes, so of course "it didn't happen that way". I must be "wrong" somehow. of course I'm not. it really did happen. that was the year that nearly finished me. I did the right thing and blaming myself is the wrong thing to do. Conformity doesn't work.

I miss him though. he introduced me to the rack of ribs you can get from the cooked section of the store we used to buy grocceries at Uni. I think that might have been the same day he inhaled from one of the helium ballons in store, trying not to laugh- his voice a few pitches higher- as we bought our stuff. (seriously, how could I not like this guy?) So for my 26th, I'm going to have a Chinese takeaway. I don't mind having no presents as that's not what its really about. my parents know I like it; what they don't know is it reminds me of the time I spent with him.

 

[oldbadger]

They behave as if nothing has happened, nothing is happening, almost fossilized in a state of suspended animation, congratulating themselves that because they are both retired they do not face the problems of coming to terms with a society which they are deeply and profoundly hostile to.

Ouch! I'm a bit like that.....

And in the absolute height of hypocrisy, then expect me to become a functioning member of the society they so utterly detest. My dad in particular sets the topic of conversation at the appropriate object of his outrage after reading the news or a book, and then sees to lecture me about how "wrong" things are. We go for long drives to get out of the house and he complains endlessly about how unreasonable everyone is.

Bloody hell...... have you been talking to my brats?

OK.......... 50 years ago I could have written much worse criticisms about my own parents, and today I could identify with the kind of thought patterns that yours have, so that means that I am a creature who polarises to conveniences.
Like your folks, I earnestly hoped that my son and daughter would find a niche and flourish in the society which I discarded in youth and hate now. And then they found niches and went away and moaned about me to their friends. When those friends met me for the first time, some of them actually triggered into high-conflict mode upon introduction, white faces, glaring eyes, quivering mouths and contracted pupils. So I didn't need to ask my kids about how they described me...... I didn't need any details. They had obviously forgotten the years of support, care and concern and had cherry-picked their own version of their upbringing....... some angel must have touched them with a finger and thus singly prepared them for all.

So I am like the parents that you need, still rely upon (?) and yet (in a way) despise. That might be useful to you, because whilst I do respect you and your knowledge (as shown on RF) very much, I could easily switch round to a mindset which is quite possibly similar to those of your parents. Like I was, your parents do seem to want to prepare you for survival in a world which they themselves despise and hate. That's what I did.
Look...... if I was a sparrow which had survived to old age I would rant and rave about the unfairness of the world, full of f-cking raptors and sodding cats......... why would any beneficial God spew that crap all over the world if he loved me? I would never-endingly chant my rage ...... at you...... and then expect you to handle it all. I would be a crap parent as a sparrow as well. You'd probably be a crap son as a sparrow!

I couldn't handle life as a youth, nor could I influence my parents in any way. If I lived again I would probably screw it all up again. Hindsight for me is not 20-20...... it's myopic and at leastr I've learned that.

The only way that you can break out of the mould and become totally confident in yourself and your own survival is to somehow find and press the button that will send you to that place of security. Until then you must learn how to be a survivor with your parents. I don't know how you'll manage that..... I didn't, but I can tell you that there's folks like me, who do understand a little bit about what you are going through.

And please don't blame your parents......... they're just a bit like me.......

 

[Laika]

Ouch! I'm a bit like that.....

Bloody hell...... have you been talking to my brats?

OK.......... 50 years ago I could have written much worse criticisms about my own parents, and today I could identify with the kind of thought patterns that yours have, so that means that I am a creature who polarises to conveniences.
Like your folks, I earnestly hoped that my son and daughter would find a niche and flourish in the society which I discarded in youth and hate now. And then they found niches and went away and moaned about me to their friends. When those friends met me for the first time, some of them actually triggered into high-conflict mode upon introduction, white faces, glaring eyes, quivering mouths and contracted pupils. So I didn't need to ask my kids about how they described me...... I didn't need any details. They had obviously forgotten the years of support, care and concern and had cherry-picked their own version of their upbringing....... some angel must have touched them with a finger and thus singly prepared them for all.

So I am like the parents that you need, still rely upon (?) and yet (in a way) despise. That might be useful to you, because whilst I do respect you and your knowledge (as shown on RF) very much, I could easily switch round to a mindset which is quite possibly similar to those of your parents. Like I was, your parents do seem to want to prepare you for survival in a world which they themselves despise and hate. That's what I did.
Look...... if I was a sparrow which had survived to old age I would rant and rave about the unfairness of the world, full of f-cking raptors and sodding cats......... why would any beneficial God spew that crap all over the world if he loved me? I would never-endingly chant my rage ...... at you...... and then expect you to handle it all. I would be a crap parent as a sparrow as well. You'd probably be a crap son as a sparrow!

I couldn't handle life as a youth, nor could I influence my parents in any way. If I lived again I would probably screw it all up again. Hindsight for me is not 20-20...... it's myopic and at leastr I've learned that.

The only way that you can break out of the mould and become totally confident in yourself and your own survival is to somehow find and press the button that will send you to that place of security. Until then you must learn how to be a survivor with your parents. I don't know how you'll manage that..... I didn't, but I can tell you that there's folks like me, who do understand a little bit about what you are going through.

And please don't blame your parents......... they're just a bit like me.......

No worries. that is good advice and what I'm aiming for. I despise my parents in so far that as I try to overcome depression, I have to manage their anxieties and fears. There is the sense that they are so old they can retire and have the luxury of being neurotic as they like, whilst (unintentionally) inflicting that on me and then expecting me to walk out of the house self-assured that I can take on the world and look after myself, and then assume I'm the one who has to change to fit their needs. there is a deep unfairness there and that is what I blame them for; the sheer feriousity of the resistence to change.

They are not bad people and I don't "hate" them by any measure as I know they have their reasons for being that way. I'm not that kind of person. it just makes growing up alot harder as I'm having to fight them to win my own personal space. Talking on RF is a substitute to talking to them. This is admittedly something that doesn't just affect me, as so many people my age now live with their parents for finanical reasons (or in my case, due to depression making it impossible for me to do otherwise). So I know I'm not alone in the grand schemes of things. it's like being impatient for the future, whilst someone else has hit hard on the breaks.

 

[oldbadger]

No worries. that is good advice and what I'm aiming for. I despise my parents in so far that as I try to overcome depression, I have to manage their anxieties and fears. There is the sense that they are so old they can retire and have the luxury of being neurotic as they like, whilst (unintentionally) inflicting that on me and then expecting me to walk out of the house self-assured that I can take on the world and look after myself, and then assume I'm the one who has to change to fit their needs. there is a deep unfairness there and that is what I blame them for; the sheer feriousity of the resistence to change.

They are not bad people and I don't "hate" them by any measure as I know they have their reasons for being that way. I'm not that kind of person. it just makes growing up alot harder as I'm having to fight them to win my own personal space. Talking on RF is a substitute to talking to them. This is admittedly something that doesn't just affect me, as so many people my age now live with their parents for finanical reasons (or in my case, due to depression making it impossible for me to do otherwise). So I know I'm not alone in the grand schemes of things. it's like being impatient for the future, whilst someone else has hit hard on the breaks.

Sorry I did not reply more quickly...... I have been out all day.
I think that I get the basic picture. I once relied upon a father who had the funds to keep me from the dogs, but who I disagreed with in just about everything. It was so bad for me that I often nipped at the hand which fed me.
Looking back, and remembering stories of my father's childhood, I can now perceive how screwed up he was, in fact, I come from a neat long line of males who were screwed up by their fathers. My Grandfather (a naval officer) was in Malta when he heard that my Grandmother was pregnant. He decided that the boy would be called Noel, a cut to last a lifetime, since his premature birthday was in early September. My old man had to stand to attention whenever he was in his father's presence. But the next child was lavished with love, freedoms and most of the family cash...... and filling in the gaps I think I can see how and why.
In fact, I think that I might be able to win a contest with you over who had/has the craziest families. I remember visiting an ancient aunt many years ago, and during conversation she mentioned a criminal trial where a defendant was accused of aiding and abetting a murder. She was intimately acquainted with the case, knew the intended victim, and although the defendant was acquitted she felt sure that he was guilty. By chance I knew of this defendant, because he kept a small fishing trawler a few berths away from my own. So I told my old aunt that I knew this man, and explained how. She threw me out of her home, quite scandalised that I could know such a bad man! My whole mob, on both sides, were as nutty as fruitcakes, but being useless and penniless I found myself somewhat attracted to both!
It took me decades to weed out as many of their prejudices, standards and hypocrisy as possible, although I still might have a few short circuits that I'm unaware of. They hide from us!

Hang in there.
The bottom line is simply this........ if you are wearing clothes, and fed, and warm, you do have the basic needs fulfilled, and although your heart is screaming for full freedom in every way, like me and most other folks, you're going to have to find your freedom from within. I was too lazy to study Buddhism properly, but after reading Buddhist members on RF, I do wonder whether they might have found the way to contentment, regardless of their surroundings.

 

[Laika]

Sorry I did not reply more quickly...... I have been out all day.

no probs.

I think that I get the basic picture. I once relied upon a father who had the funds to keep me from the dogs, but who I disagreed with in just about everything. It was so bad for me that I often nipped at the hand which fed me.
Looking back, and remembering stories of my father's childhood, I can now perceive how screwed up he was, in fact, I come from a neat long line of males who were screwed up by their fathers. My Grandfather (a naval officer) was in Malta when he heard that my Grandmother was pregnant. He decided that the boy would be called Noel, a cut to last a lifetime, since his premature birthday was in early September. My old man had to stand to attention whenever he was in his father's presence. But the next child was lavished with love, freedoms and most of the family cash...... and filling in the gaps I think I can see how and why.
In fact, I think that I might be able to win a contest with you over who had/has the craziest families. I remember visiting an ancient aunt many years ago, and during conversation she mentioned a criminal trial where a defendant was accused of aiding and abetting a murder. She was intimately acquainted with the case, knew the intended victim, and although the defendant was acquitted she felt sure that he was guilty. By chance I knew of this defendant, because he kept a small fishing trawler a few berths away from my own. So I told my old aunt that I knew this man, and explained how. She threw me out of her home, quite scandalised that I could know such a bad man! My whole mob, on both sides, were as nutty as fruitcakes, but being useless and penniless I found myself somewhat attracted to both!
It took me decades to weed out as many of their prejudices, standards and hypocrisy as possible, although I still might have a few short circuits that I'm unaware of. They hide from us!

Yeah. it's the same situation with my parents. they've had some fairly aweful experiences (they both had difficult relationship with their parents and were very poor for a long time). lol, your story about your aunt made me smile, so thanks for that.

Hang in there.
The bottom line is simply this........ if you are wearing clothes, and fed, and warm, you do have the basic needs fulfilled, and although your heart is screaming for full freedom in every way, like me and most other folks, you're going to have to find your freedom from within. I was too lazy to study Buddhism properly, but after reading Buddhist members on RF, I do wonder whether they might have found the way to contentment, regardless of their surroundings.

I've used psychoanalyisis in a way that is probably similar to buddhists using meditation to unravel my thoughts and learn to let go honestly. it has undoubtably heled to spend time with my own thoughts and to get to know myself better. So, I have learned to cope with the situation most of the time. As long as I keep myself occupied and out of the way, it is quite managable. the internet is a lifesaver. however, some times I just need to let off steam on RF. getting it out in the open is a way of letting go and finding some kind of acceptance of the situation your in. feeling that you can't say something is wrong is often worse than what is actually wrong. it is recognising our ability to change the situation little by little that makes it easier.

 

[Laika]

Atheism without Atheists:
A few of Communism's excentricities towards Religion​

I'm beginning to stop thinking of myself as an "atheist". The status quo on RF and elsewhere appears to exclude communism from atheism for a number of reasons, but it mainly comes down to an in-built value bias that atheists must necessarily be secular and sceptics. its somewhat bizzare as I've realised that atheism is now so dominated by a single group- namely liberal individualists- that it has been defined by this dominant group. I share very little in common with them beyond a disbelief in god. the way I arrive at that disbelief is also completely different as it is not the result of scepticism but of materialism.

My attitude towards religion is arguably more philosophical because I don't accept science as self-evident but realise it is open to interpretation to some extent. science is not an authority in Marxism, but is actually subordinated to materialist ideology- that's going to cause me some problems later on as I develop because I share some of theists anti-science views (such as hesitation over the big bang, quantum mechanics in much the same way theists have issues with evolution). For someone to say that Communism isn't atheist is wrong. For someone to say that Communists behave like religious people is very accurate. the issue of course is that free thought, scepticism etc. are taken to be self-evident, realistic representations of the world which is not the case in Marxism- which would argue that are symptommatic of a liberal 'ideology'. I'm starting to use the term "liberal" in a very exceentric way as it goes from being based on a self-description of liberal ideas, to a Marxist strawman- often with some grain of truth.

There are also certian oddities in communist theory than keep cropping up. The term "strong atheism" is totally inadequate to actually describe what communists believe. They do not believe religion is false, nor do they believe with 100% certianty there is no god. rather religion is an illusion and with some of the uncertianties involves, it can be considered a form of pragmatic atheism (or apatheism) in which materialist philosophy is held to be true enough based on practical experience rather than an absolute conviction. Scientific Materialism is an odd philosophy as the very definition of truth is so open and based on "practice". it's therefore in constant state of evolution as to what the truth is, so there are no absolutely certain positions within it, merely that some positions (such as atheism) are more certain than others.

In a strange way, the militant anti-theism of communists comes closer to a misotheism or dystheism (god is not necessarily good/is evil) in that the 'evil god' represents a projection of the cruelty of the ruling class. This was something I realised in my very breif flirtation with Atheistic Satanism as the Satanism and Marxism overlap in this area as both are materialist. God (and Satan) are illusions, projections of an earthly power, rather than not existing. There are some intresting quotes by Stalin that I came accross:

"God's not unjust, he doesn't actually exist. We've been deceived. If God existed, he'd have made the world more just... I'll lend you a book and you'll see." [The book Stalin is reffering to is Darwin's Origin of Species].

"God is on your side? Is He a Conservative? The Devil's on my side, he's a good Communist." [this was meant as a joke to Winston Churchill during the Theran Conference in 1943.]

it's of course not a reflection of the entrity of Stalin's or even communist thinking but just an intresting insight. The political and moral objections to religion takes precedence over the debate on gods existences. it is simply not in the interests of a communist- as a representative of the working class- to believe in a god as it condemns them to accepting their servitude as 'divinely ordained by fate' or a 'natural order'.

As such, Communist ideology bears a strong resemblence to Nietzschean philosophy. The "death of god" refers not simply to the literal death of a diety, but to refer to the 'death' of christian faith under the weight of its illusions and hypocrisy. Communism is a bizzare mixture of idealism and cynicism, i.e. it is deeply cynical regards other beliefs as illusionary or as unconscious deceptions by the ruling class, whilst having great dealism of its own beliefs as the 'true' reflection of reality. This blend applies to ethical problems as well. It is, like Nietzsche, a form of active nihilism, in that the 'old' morality is destroyed to make way for the 'new' morality. man becomes the creator of his own moral values like Nietzsche's ubermensch. the difference is over whether the ubermensch is an individual or a social class. This (active) nihilism gives communism a peculiar character which- whilst rejecting religious belief- must necessarily seek to answer the same set of questions the arise from religious belief, over life, death, meaning of life, our relative insignifiance in the universe and the fact we are at the mercy of natural (and social) forces versus the moral significance of the individual and the desire for human freedom.

This is not an 'orthodox' communist view but a deviation (known as the "god builders" who wanted to turn socialism into a religion, which was rejected by Lenin and consequently all the communists that followed) but it reflects my interest in psychology as well as the fact I was drawn to communism as a pseudo-religion to cope and overcome depression. its a necessary stage in my own development to refine my ideas and figure out what exactly is my relationship to religious belief and believers. I am an 'anti-theist' in some ways (the notion of original sin coming up top of the list) but not in others as I still don't think religious belief in itself is a problem. It is not yet in my view "the opium of the people" as I remain attached to liberal ideas which often implicitly assume religious belief is an innate part of human nature.